Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Footfall
Footfall
Market Drivers
There are now numerous market forces causing clients to insist
on floor vibration checks:
Design codes AISC and IBC recommend that floor vibrations
be checked.
Commercial on lively floors, computer users complain because
their screens wobble, making it difficult to work.
Bridges need to comply with bridge codes.
Laboratories equipment, such as optical and electron microscopes and laser research systems, are very sensitive to vibrations. Floors for such equipment floors must comply with the
BBN or ASHRAE standards.
Hospitals operating theaters require the utmost stability for
delicate operations, and the latest scanning technologies require
even lower vibration levels.
Airports Airport owners are concerned that floor vibrations in
heavily trafficked waiting areas can upset seated travelers.
Retail many major retailers require assurance that vibrations
on display floors, such as a display of glasses on glass shelves,
will not be excessive. If the floor is too lively, then the glasses
will rattle
Vibration Problem
For many years, serviceability requirements have been a part of
structural design. Initially, these were just deflection limits to prevent finishes from cracking and building occupants noticing floors
sagging. These proved adequate for decades, until advances began
to be made into more efficient, lighter structures, such as composite
beam or post-tensioned slab floors, and open-plan rather than cellular offices became more common. Unfortunately, users of some of
these buildings found that the floors could be rather lively.
The first proposed remedy to this problem was to restrict the
natural frequency of the floor beams, since it was thought that if this
were kept above walking pace, then resonance should not occur.
For simple floor layouts, the fact that this frequency could be found
by a simple hand calculation encouraged this approach.
www.SandV.com
Industry Solutions
Industry experts recognized that floor frequency was not the
crucial issue, but how much the floor responds to the footsteps
of a person walking over it a footfall response calculation. Various trade organizations, such as the American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC),1 the Steel Construction Institute (SCI),2 and
the Concrete Society3 have produced guides to assist engineers in
predicting this floor response.
Measuring the Vibration Problem. Human comfort is often the
key design objective for footfall-induced vibration, but in research,
medical, microelectronics and other vibration-sensitive occupancies, vibration may need to be restricted to levels well below the
threshold of human perception.
Response Factors for Humans. Setting simple criteria for human acceptance, such as shown in Figure 4, is complicated by the
fact that human tolerance of vibration varies with the direction,
frequency and duration of vibration. To account for direction
and frequency dependencies, the response factor R is defined as
a multiplier of the level of vibration, at the average threshold of
human perception, in the direction of concern at any frequency.
Therefore, a response factor of 1 represents the magnitude of vibration that is just perceptible by a typical human, while a response
SOUND & VIBRATION/NOVEMBER 2009
11
or equipment-specific) apply.
Regular and Irregular Structural Layouts. The difficulty with
some floor vibration guidelines is that they offer procedures only
for regular rectangular floor layouts. While this simplicity enables
calculations to be carried out by hand, many modern buildings
do not have simple and uniform floor bays. While some software
suppliers have suggested that irregular frames cannot experience
resonant problems, this is not the case in practice. This is supported by an example in the AISC design guide (shown in Figure
5) where unacceptable walking vibrations occur throughout most
of the floor, particularly adjacent to the atrium.
In fact, floors with irregular bays can be livelier than regular
ones, because susceptible vibration modes are sometimes localized to small areas. This means that the modes have low modal
mass and can be more easily excited to high acceleration responses
under footfalls. This can be predicted with GSA Footfall as shown
in Figure 6.
If we then add the posts under the atrium beams using staged
analysis, the floor in this area does improve. But there is some
knock-on effect to adjacent bays (see Figure 7).
s,
itie s
tiv idge
c
a r
ic tb
m foo
yth oor
h
g
R td
pin
ou
op
sh cing
,
s n
ge da
rid d
tb an
o
fo ing
or in
do , d
In alls
m
Stro
tirin ngly p
go
e
ver rcept
ib
lon
g p le
erio
ds
10
Peak Acceleration, %g
Cle
a
dist rly pe
r
rac
ting ceptib
le
Per
c
1.0
ce
en
id
es
,r
es
ffic
ept
ible
e
rv
ely
0.01
cu
Bar
0.1
n
eli
per
IS
cep
tible
ba
10
Frequency, Hz
100
GSA Footfall
For many years, GSA has been one of the leading PC-based
packages for structural analysis. Developed by Arup to meet its
own demanding and diverse requirements as one of the worlds
leading firms of international consulting engineers, GSAs capabilities are proven on thousands of complex and prestigious projects
worldwide.4,5
GSA Footfalls analyzes structures using extensively validated
Arup methods. Appropriate dynamic loading functions for walking
and other human activities as recommended by Arup research and
the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) are automatically available, including forces for use with stairs.
A properly conducted finite-element analysis (FEA) is the only
reliable way to predict the footfall response of any floor that is
not part of a regular rectangular frame (see Figure 8). Even with a
regular frame, FEA is often quicker than using hand calculations.
Using GSA, you get quick and accurate predictions of floors resonant and transient response to footfall forces, including response
factors, peak and RMS accelerations and velocities.
GSA analysis enables you to locate regions of high and low rewww.SandV.com
13
Step-by-Step Guide
1. Sub-Frame Model Create a model of the floor in question using
beams and/or shells as shown in Figure 10.
2. Modal Analysis Run a modal analysis to find the modes up
to the limit specified in the relevant design guide. These are
typically 10 Hz, 15 Hz or twice the fundamental frequency (see
Figures 11 and 12).
3. Footfall Analysis Run a footfall response analysis as shown in
Figure 13. Options include selection of harmonic or impulsive
forces, the area of excitation, footfall rates and damping.
Summary
References
14
1. Murray, T. M., Allen, D. E., and Ungar, E. E., Floor Vibrations Due to
Human Activity, AISC, 2003.
2. Smith A. L., Hicks S. J., and Devine P. J., Design of Floors for Vibration:
A New Approach, Steel Construction Institute, 2007.
3. Willford, M. R., and Young, P,, A Design Guide for Footfall Induced
Vibration of Structures, The Concrete Centre, 2006.
4. Willford, M., Field, C., and Young, P., Improved Methodologies for the
Prediction of Footfall Induced Vibration, Architectural Engineering
National Conference, Omaha, NB, 2006.
5. www.oasys-software.com/GSA.
www.SandV.com